Shivakumara Naika vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 471, 417 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 147/2014.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme, during 2012-13 academic year, Rs. 207.91 Lakh amount has been sanctioned and during 2013-14 academic year Rs. 251.48 Lakh amount has been sanctioned. Out of the said amount, Rs. 32.44 Lakh amount has been sanctioned through the supplier by name A.M. Dharmanaika under FTO. In the Measurement book, the name of the supplier has been misused by D. Shivakumar Naika, who is Technical Assistant and thereby, misappropriated the amount. As per Government Notification, the amount which has been misappropriated in Village Panchayath and it was directed to take action against the person, who had misappropriated the amount and directed to recover the amount under Surcharge. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner is working as a Technical Assistant and he is not the person who is authorized to release the funds to the tender holders. It is his submission that before making payment, the petitioner has verified the bills properly and thereafter, the bills signed by the petitioner were counter signed by the Section Officer, who is superior to the petitioner. Hence, it is the Section Officer, BDO and Executive Officer who are all responsible for the alleged offence. The petitioner is totally unconnected with the said offence. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the amount sanctioned by the Government for the particular project has been diverted by the petitioner for personal use and there is misappropriation of amount. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is absconding. The petitioner has to be interrogated by the investigating officer. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.

It is the allegation in the complaint so also the other materials produced by the prosecution that out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 251.48 lakh, Rs. 32.44 lakh has been sanctioned through the supplier A.M. Dharmanaika. In the measurement book, the name of supplier has been misused by D.S. Naik i.e., the petitioner herein, who is working as a Technical Assistant and thereby, the petitioner has misappropriated the amount. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is against the petitioner that he has misappropriated the alleged amount. The matter is still under investigation. Serious allegations are made that the amount sanctioned in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme has been misappropriated. Looking to the materials on record at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also with regard to entitlement or otherwise to release the petitioner on bail, it may not be proper for this Court to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on the bail. However, immediately after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the petitioner can renew his request.

With this observation, the petition is disposed of for the present.